For the past 8 years banks have had it rough. Partly they had themselves to blame, partly this is the result of lax (or light touch, or ‘growth oriented’ stimulative) government legislation and action. Anti-banking public opinion and the subsequent more stringent state aid rules and bail in requirements are currently preventing public sector measures that are needed to create short-term financial stability. Now in the news are Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Deutsche Bank, but similar stories have been available in the past across the EU, and at certain times in e.g. the USA and China. For troubled banks there do not appear to be voluntary private sector interventions, and forcefully ‘inviting’ stronger banks to buy their weaker brethren does not work because either the stronger banks are too strong relative to their supervisor, or too weak to bear the cross alone, or are themselves part of the weaker side of the system. Normally the state balance sheet would now be used to prop up the relevant bits of the financial infrastructure. Examples of such traditional public sector solutions for banks overwhelmed by non performing loans, sovereign/bank cross infection (now more often in the modus that new or old bad fiscal decisions and doubts about sovereign debts are infecting their banks in e.g. the UK, Italy and in Greece) would be e.g. nationalisation or a state aid loan at non-market rates or conditions. Even though such measures are often financially beneficial to the investing state in the long term, the potential for high-risk and especially the sheer amount of money needed for the initial public investment has influenced the introduction of barriers to public sector intervention. More specifically, any use of public funds now needs to be preceded by the bail-in of shareholders, junior bondholders and then senior creditors, such as current account holders above 100.000 euro. Creatively, Italy has introduced its Atlante/Atlas fund as a private sector alternative to state aid, but there are continuing doubts whether the Italian financial sector, based in an over-indebted country, is sturdy enough as a whole for the least weak institutions to help out their weakest colleagues.
Even though at least three of the legs of a banking union (EBA in the whole of the EU, and SRM and SSM in the Eurozone) are now in their operational phase, the responsibility for coming up with the funding for solutions appears to continue to be territorial. The SRM is still building up its funding, and it is no doubt difficult to determine when it should grasp the reins from the SSM and take control and responsibility for a concrete solution. In the mean time, local funds and savings account holders tend to be the biggest category of bail-inable creditors, once the more sophisticated financial sector investors have decided not to invest in shares or coco’s of a troubled bank, or are dumping such shares or bail-inable bonds at the first hint of trouble. In the case of amongst others Italy, this is a political issue as a recent bail-in showed that many of the bail-inable creditors are consumers and small and medium sized enterprises. Agreeing that the Single Resolution Board of the SRM takes charge, means accepting that these voters will suffer. These are the same taxpayers who were supposed to benefit from the fact that ‘taxpayer money’ should only be in play after bail-in had taken place (but instead suffer most). The least sophisticated players are the most likely investors in the bail-inable unsecured bank bonds that at the moment do not pay a credible risk premium in the central bank stimulated low interest environment. A territorial approach does not work in a rich but stretched country such as Italy, however, nor is the health of Italian banks of interest only to other Italian banks, the health of Deutsche or the smaller community banks only of interest to Germany, or the health of the UK financial system upon Brexit only of interest to other UK banks. The reputation and financial health of all banks in the Eurozone, in the EU, and perhaps even in the world are now soundly linked in our open financial system, with information, distrust and fear propagating quickly on the internet. This should make it in the joint interest of the member states and governments of other financial centres to stand together, but the aforementioned public opinion and a sovereign tradition of not helping each other across borders when there are solvency issues at banking groups of which the top holding is licensed elsewhere, are preventing this.
Nothing is, however, preventing banks and other key bits of the international financial infrastructure such as CCP’s to step up themselves. Regardless of whether Atlante/Atlas was voluntary or set up under political pressure, it would appear in the calculated self-interest of such institutions to create – as they did some decades or in some cases such as the UK centuries ago – a new central bank from their midst, to deal with this issue that no bank or member state can deal with unilaterally. Strong appearing financial groups can become weak almost overnight if the banking system is distrusted or an incident in one of their subsidiaries occurs (AIG, Citi, Deutsche, Unicredit, RBS, Fortis are examples that come to mind), so it would be in wise for both currently high ranking and for currently low ranking banks to participate in a new private sector bail-out structure that would be able, allowed and willing to act. And no doubt such a EU or worldwide private sector bail-out fund could count on a high rating, and a low tax environment, especially if it is set up as a charity instead of as a profit centre (perhaps with any profits allocated to help out bail-in victims, or to sponsor financial education of consumers and small enterprises). Taking action themselves, jointly, in the common interest but by voluntarily putting up their own money would not least also give a valid emotional argument for allowing them to set their own course again, instead of being regulated to the max as is the current regulatory trajectory for the still nominally ‘private’ sector activity of banking, and thus take control of their own destiny again by also picking up the tab if things go wrong.
This is because depression will not tadalafil india online unica-web.com only affect you mentally but also physically as well. tadalafil in canada Make sure that a stimulant of romantic and sexual nature exists. These days’ problems like sexual dysfunction, premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, penis shrinkage and low sex unica-web.com sildenafil tablets uk desire. Benefits levitra vs cialis of these coupons are you get the medication that differs from generic drug only by its known name. So my question would be to the banks: where is the new private sector central bank?

Banking supervisors and legislators have opted firmly for the bail-in tool as a key part of crisis management at banks. According to the FSB, the EU competition authorities and the EU banking regulators, bail-in is the critical element in any scenario to resolve a bank that is in financial trouble. Before state aid can be dispensed, capital and the (newly reinvented tier 3 capital under another name) bail-inable debt capital requirement under the banking resolution and recovery directive needs to be written down in part or in full, or converted into shares. State aid includes any form of investment (equity or loans) at non-market terms, and includes the dispensation of money from the recently introduced resolution funds (because these funds are government controlled, even though they are funded by the banking sector). There have now been some minor try-outs of crisis management built around a bail-in at failing bank, for instance in Cyprus and Italy. In the absence of sufficient share capital, these try-outs have also involved bailing in depositors who had more than 100.000 euro (the deposit guarantee limit in the EU) entrusted to the failing bank, as well as bailing in consumers who unwittingly bought ‘saving certificates’ that turned out to be subordinated bonds (the term ‘subordinated’ means the same as the term ‘blah blah’ to many depositors).

If the state does not bear the risk, who does?

In Cyprus, the announcement of a bail-in of protected depositors caused social instability to the extent that bail-in enforcers backed down. In the final scenario, only the amount of deposits over 100.000 euro were bailed in. In Italy, the social repercussions of bailing in poor consumers who bought a subordinated piece of paper may well also lead to backtracking on the bail-in. A possible route would be by (ex post) declaring that selling subordinated bonds to consumers constitutes misselling, for which damages will need to be paid to the consumer (to the extent of the bailed-in amount, de facto annulling the bail-in). Though selling bonds or shares or subordinated deposits to only slightly financially aware retail investors did not seem to disturb anyone prior to the crisis, selling coco’s and similar paper already appears to be on the radar of conduct of business supervisors as most likely unsuitable for consumers. A high-risk investment in any bail-inable debt (under bail-in rules including senior unsecured debt, or savings exceeding 100.000 euro) may indeed well be prohibited as unsuitable for non-financially educated consumers and small companies (which can only be supported). These partial retrenchments of the scope of bail-in so far only concerned consumers, however, though both consumers and the financial system as a whole may also be harmed by bailing in claims on a failing bank held by of other banks, pension funds, insurers and so on. The likelihood of such damage to the financial system and directly or indirectly or to large groups of retail clients of bailed in financial institutions increases if a bail-in would ever need to be performed at a systemic bank.

Lacking impact assessment of the bail-in tool

Research on the consequences of a bail-in is still in its infancy. A detailed impact assessment appears to be lacking, with the main driver of bail-in legislation being that ‘the taxpayer’, whomever that may be, needs to be prevented from having to foot the bill of state intervention at systemic banks and other systemic financial institutions. Most likely, ‘the taxpayer’ is one of the consumers or companies (or public authorities), whose claim on the bank is being bailed in, or the beneficiary of pensions or insurance pay outs by pension funds and insurers whose claims on a failing bank are being bailed in. Whether concentrating this pain on the few entities with a direct link to the bank is fair or not is debatable, but it certainly will mean that these unhappy few will be less profitable companies, poorer consumers, and loss making financial investors, who will pay less taxes, buy less stuff and employ fewer people in the future. Tax income will thus likely be reduced, possibly to the same extent (or higher) than a more traditional form of state aid would amount to. This will almost certainly be the case after deducting future income from selling the ‘investment’ (now funded by state aid) in a failing bank, or by recouping emergency loans made to a formerly failing bank. The main effect of a bail-in requirement may well be that the pay out for crisis resolution is now channelled directly between investors end creditors/depositors and the bank, instead of via the sovereign balance sheet, though the net effect on both the balance sheet of the state and of retail clients and financial institution may be the same or worse.

What I personally would like to know, as guesswork is all we have now, is what would actually happen to the financial system and to the taxpayers if the bail-in tool would be applied to one of the bigger banks. I think this is also essential information for any banking supervisor or crisis manager such as the Eurozone Single Resolution Fund before they apply the bail-in tool to any systemic bank, to avoid creating financial instability. So far the tool has mainly been applied to minnows amongst the banks, and even there it has hurt. Can we ask EBA, the ESRB, the SRB, the ECB, the BIS and/or the FSB, to perform a stress scenario including a bail-in to each banking group that is deemed ‘systemic’?

The proper application of this wonder solution under the proper care of a registered dietician, and that is what people who made the lie up were unable to understand. buying viagra from canada Men taking nitrates or alpha-blockers (antihypertensive drug) are not allowed to relax and receive blood. prescription de levitra If anything Jelly pills are anything but rubbery. viagra prescription Other men are usually seen cialis generico online http://appalachianmagazine.com/2018/0/page/10/ preferring treatment without their partner’s knowledge. Possible stress scenario test, first round effects

In such a stress scenario, a bail-in would be applied for instance after a year of severe losses that either were written down from equity or added to formal or informal sets of non-performing loans (the latter by banks that had no spare equity to write down, and by supervisors that wanted to avoid having to face the possibility of formally declaring a bank bankrupt on their watch). After such a prolonged deterioration of a banks’ health a full bail in is performed. In that case, how much would be bailed in of (1) public authorities investment (i.e. public shareholdings in banks such as SNS or RBS, as well as deposits by states and local authorities), (2) how much would be bailed in of loans or investment held by other banks (in the traditional domino-style financial instability scenario), (3) how much of loans and investments held by a pension fund/life insurer/investment fund, (4) how much of loan and investments by regular companies, and (5) how much of loans and investments by consumers. If this kind of information is not known in advance, then bailing in a systemic bank is just opening a black box of misery, similar to the repercussions of the unknown spread of risk in the financial system through securitisation bonds composed of bad quality US subprime mortgages, which were the starting point of the most recent financial crisis. The outcome of this first set of questions would only be first round effects (compounded if multiple banks would be subjected to the bail-in tool at the same time).

Second round effects

Once the information on the first set of questions on the above stress test is available, it would be interesting to assess whether those write downs would be concentrated in the uneducated part of the consumer pool, and at financially naive enterprises (and there is no reason to assume that industrial enterprises, restaurants, plumbers and bakers are financially educated enough to know that any surplus on their accounts over 100.000 euro would be bailed in, nor that most pension funds have the staff and expertise to monitor their banks). Equally, it would be interesting to investigate how many of the more educated and rich would have scampered away well before the bail-in once rumours of potential losses at a large bank would start to circulate. Lastly, it would be relevant to know the second round effects on tax income and economic growth, as well as on the pay-out (and thus taxable income) by pension funds and life insurers to retirees? And how would that over time (e.g. five years) compare to the more traditional scenario of a state funded bail-out, of which I would guess between 60 and 120 % is recouped after divestment of the bailed out systemic bank, or in the case of smaller banks: a liquidation scenario of a solvent but illiquid bank?

Final remarks

Introducing the bail-in tool in the crisis management of banks may well prove to be opportune. So far, however, there is mainly evidence to the contrary, with a loss of trust in banks and in banking regulators when consumers are bailed in. When systemic banks are bailed in, this may well turn out to lead to disproportional losses for the least financially educated. If in the future the claims of more educated parties are bailed in at failing systemic banks, this may lead to domino effects that lead to financial instability, and/or to bigger losses for ‘the taxpayer’ than under the more traditional state aid scenario. Until this is investigated, a bail-in at a larger bank may well trigger our next financial system crisis if that risk turns out to lie in unknown and vulnerable places. Further research is thus urgently needed.

Defaulting on your obligations is a clear event. You did not pay when you should, you did not show up when you promised you would, you did not deliver the assets for which you were paid. In financial contracts the list of clear-cut defaults is often expanded by contractually defined additional ‘events of default’. Such events of default could include many things that normal people would not call a default, such as reorganizing the group of which the obligor is part, or if the obligor suffers a credit rating decrease. Normally, these ‘events’ serve to enable the creditor to have a say in restructurings and such. This allows them to avoid their rights being eviscerated by e.g. removing cash out of the legal entity they have a future claim on.

Default reinvented

Banking legislators have also engaged in such reinvention of the term default as applicable to any credit obligation. The starting position is that there are consequences for the amount of financial buffers that a bank needs to hold for each claim on the obligor after it has not been paid for a certain number of days after they became due. Like the drafters of contractual ‘events of default’, legislators have tried to make the calculation of the required amount of financial buffers more forward looking, and include events when there are ‘just’ signs of possible future non-payment. For IRB banks this already happened in the old CRD after the introduction of the Basel II version of the capital accord. Under the new CRR, the forward-looking element also applies to banks that use the standardised models to calculate credit risk capital requirements.

The CRR requires supervisors and banks to treat obligors credit as ‘defaulted’ when there are early warning signs that indicate that the obligor is unlikely to pay in full. If such default as defined in the CRR and its predecessors happens, banks on the standardised approach need to hold more capital against some or even all the claims they have on the obligor (risk weighting them at a headline rate of 150% instead of at the risk weights that would apply on non-defaulted claims of e.g. 0% for sovereign bonds, 20% for unrated banks short term debt, 20% for highly rated banks long term debt, or 100% on unrated corporates; and equivalent changes in the calculation of the probability to default – PD – factor in IRB calculations). Such a default – as in a failure to pay a due claim by an obligor – does not yet trigger obligatory losses. Once losses are certain, they would have to be written down from the bank’s capital. Instead, a default only means that more capital needs to be held against the claim to buffer against unexpected losses. Only if events subsequently or simultaneously progress negatively and losses are relatively certain, such ‘expected loss’ needs to be fully deducted from the CRR-financial buffers. As can be expected, writing down losses is unpopular, but even having to increase financial buffers for a loan after a loan has already been granted can be costly, and thus unpopular with the banks. If the bank is important and thinly capitalised, it may even be unpopular with supervisors.

CRR examples

Luckily for less diligent banks, most of the situations that the CRR subsequently references as examples of ‘unlikeliness’ to pay in full are drafted to be dependent on their own action. If they for example act in a way that acknowledges that the debtor is in problems (for instance by applying for the bankruptcy of the obligor), they also need to increase their financial buffers. As long as the bank itself does not actually take action or draw conclusions, they can avoid triggering the obligation to acknowledge CRR-default until well after an actual default has occurred, namely until 90 days after the obligor has actually failed to pay. For IRB banks it can even be postponed until 180 days have passed without payment after a claim for interest or principal became due in the few member states that use a supervisory discretion to deal with apparently slow payment systems or for instance badly behaved debtors in the public sector. This national discretion expired for the smaller banks that use the standardised approach already in 2011, but the large IRB banks in countries with apparently slow payment traditions such as France and Great Britain can continue to treat slow payers – e.g. municipalities – as if they are solid obligors. Even if the stricter 90 days is applied, this still means that less diligent banks can escape increasing their financial buffers for at least 3 months after a claim became due. This is not very forward looking, unless the bank is proactive in managing its risky exposures and wants to pay attention – as is the CRR obligation – to indications of non-payment.

The indicators for unlikeliness to pay – as copied unchanged from the old IRB provisions in the CRD – include that the bank recognises a significant perceived decline in credit quality, sells (part of) the exposure at a relevant loss, agrees to a distressed restructuring with negative financial adjustments, asks for the bankruptcy (!) of the client, or if the client actually is bankrupt. This fine example of legislative prose means that according to legislators even a court proclaiming the bankruptcy of the debtor is only an indicator of unlikeliness to pay, and still only means that the exposure to the bankrupt client needs to be weighed at 150%, unless the bank itself determines that loss is certain and the exposure written down accordingly (after which they can risk weight the reduced value of the exposure at a lower risk weight again).

No consistency in application

Remarkably, as part of their monitoring EBA and the SSM supervisors have found that not all banks apply the rules in the same manner, and that the national interpretations (and application of the 180 days of non-payment of past due payments before being forced to acknowledge that the debtor may be troubled) lead to different capital levels for debt portfolios with the same risk profile. Some banks delay finding an event of default, and thus delay applying a higher risk weight or PD to the calculation for the minimum amount of capital they need to hold. Some government bodies are allowed some extra time by the local supervisors to pay their debts, even though the risk is the same or higher than in a similar debt just across the border in another member state. Some less principled banks could even opt to sell almost due bonds owed by a troubled debtor at (fire sale) market prices without formally acknowledging this as an indicator of default, to avoid having to consider whether the rest of the debt of that obligor in default when the debtor fails to fork over the repayment of the short dated bonds. CRR legislators were aware of the issue, but failed to reach a compromise on a solution. Instead, they have added to the existing definition an order to EBA the order to monitor the application of this definition, to come up by 2017 with a report on the 90 or 180 days past due issue, and (without a deadline) to provide non-binding guidelines on how default should be understood and applied by banks in the EU. The SSM has identified the 90/180 days issue as a major impediment to its working practices, and is aiming to pre-empt the 2017 EBA review for the Eurozone member states (of the couple of member state competent authorities that apply this leniency, only the UK supervisors would be able to continue to apply the supervisory discretion, as they will not be bound by the ECB choice on behalf of the Eurozone competent authorities).

As acknowledging the potential for default is core to preparing for recessions and asset based crisis at banks, it is good that EBA has already spent some of its scarce resources to find indicators on how a well set up bank that diligently monitors the credit quality of its debtors should be able to avoid its own future default by taking timely action should do this. Their consultation paper is not a perfect paper yet, but nonetheless it raises the standard for less diligent banks. It for instance implies more clearly that banks cannot limit themselves to the CRR examples of indicators, but actually should look for indicators that the obligor may perhaps not pay to determine whether it is unlikely to pay. Self evident as that sounds, it may be good to reinforce the main rule of heightening financial buffers when it becomes more likely that those are needed, not looking only at the badly written subsequent examples in the CRR provisions, that might lead to fatal delays to shore up buffers when e.g. your sovereign is failing, or when one of the major banks of your country is failing.

(Un)intended consequences?

The consultation paper also raises question, however. Was the spirit of these rules – to prepare for future write-downs by all types of obligors – applied in full in this manner by banks (and their supervisors) when the possibility of default was high in the last few years? For instance when the US government shut down, or when several Eurozone countries were (not yet sure that they would be) bailed out? It is unlikely that this was the case. A part explanation may be that for member states it may have been equally welcome to have optimistic banks that do not apply the indicators of unlikeliness to pay too diligently, and preferably not at all to the government itself, to large banks and to protected sectors. The consultation paper appears to ignore that the same rules should also be applied to these more sensitive types of obligors. The indicators mentioned appear most relevant if thinking of debt of households and loans to smaller companies. They lack clearly defined indicators derived from financial markets that would be much more relevant to larger obligors. The current references to market movements are vague, and thus fail to achieve harmonisation. It would be helpful to e.g. define a certain percentage of losses in share value over a relatively short period of time as a good indicator of potential default (which according to the draft guidelines now need only be considered when fair value in the profit or loss account needs to be reassessed under accounting rules). Rising CDS values would be another good and clear indicator, or high implicit interest rates of bonds traded in the secondary markets, as seen for instance when Fortis or RBS or AIG or Lehman failed, or when Greece defaulted on its original bonds by restructuring those bonds held by private sector banks, insurers, pension funds and consumers.

The macroprudential repercussions of banks being forced to start increase their financial buffers for larger numbers of small obligors or for the potential default of one or more systemically relevant obligors also do not appear to have been considered. Even though the lack of macroprudential awareness is a design flaw of the CRR-article, the guidelines could have helpfully added text on what to do when a systemically important private or public sector entity shows such signs, or if a specific industrial sector or the whole of the private sector in a member state starts to show signs of stress. In that case supervisors and central banks need to be informed of such signals, and in turn should be able to instruct banks to act both in line with their legal obligations to assess indicators of non-payment, but without doing systemic damage. For instance by orchestrating a joint response so that all banks prepare in the same manner (by acknowledging the potential for default of e.g. the USA under a political shutdown, Greece when the first bail-out appeared to be too optimistically structured, or any troubled bank about which rumours swirl in the financial markets). This same point applies to the proposed rules for keeping an obligor nominally in default – even it has started to pay again – to check that the default indicators have indeed permanently receded before allowing the bank to bring down the required level of capital again. As currently formulated, for instance the fact that the ECB accepts unsecured sovereign bonds of Greece again as collateral, or that a conditional new bail-out programme was politically agreed, would not have meant that the commercial banks of Greece could have brought down their increased capital levels for Greek sovereign debts. Such ECB actions are not mentioned as an indicator that all troubles are permanently over. That also applies to the question whether the USA can return to non-defaulted status quickly when a last minute deal on a budget or higher debt ceiling is agreed.

Perhaps a strict application of the law on systemically important obligors is not the intention of supervisors, and may not have been the intention of some members of the Council of the EU as co-legislator. The CRR definition of default nonetheless applies to all sorts of obligors, not only to those that are relatively irrelevant. A bank or supervisor that blatantly ignores indictors of default, and fails to increase the CRR-mandated minimum of capital in a timely manner sets itself up for liability. It thus may be good to give more clarity on the content of the legal obligation of banks and supervisors, instead of relying of regulatory forbearance and/or politically sensitive application of the CRR rules to avoid amongst others macroprudential consequences of a too strict or too late application of the definition of default.

Also see:

• Art. 110.4, 127, 178, 506 CRR 575/2013 and art. 101.5 CRD IV Directive 2013/36/EU.
• Art. 154.1 and 154.7, Annex VI part 1, chapter 10 (§61-65), Annex VII part 4, chapter 2.1 (§44-48) Recast Banking Directive 2006/48/EC (as replaced by the mentioned CRR provisions)
• EBA, Consultation paper, Guidelines on the application of the definition of default under Article 178 of Regulation (EU) 575/2013, EBA/CP/2015/15, 22 September 2015.
• ECB, Public consultation on a draft regulation of the European Central Bank on the exercise of options and discretions available in Union law, November 2015, article 4.
• EBA, overview of options and discretions.
• EBA, CEBS’s technical advice to the European Commission on options and national discretions, 17 October 2008, amongst other option 70, 113 and 151 (disclosure: at the time I was the chair of the relevant working group).
• EU Banking Supervision, Chapter 8

ED can eat viagra generika 100mg up a lot of mental energy of men as they can’t help but think about this problem. Men, no matter which ever part of earth they belong to viagra buy uk need complete cure for this disorder. How does a kamagra work? An erection is combined function of brain, nerves, vessels, hormone, sildenafil 100mg tab muscles, and circulatory system. It is also advisable to consult the suggestive viagra generic no prescription dosage of this medicine. //kamagradepot.com/ Kamagra is cheap and works similarly as the branded works.

There has been a race between banks and regulators to add size and complexity to banking groups on the one hand and to regulations that cover such businesses on the other. It is questionable that smaller and simpler banks and their clients are best served by this development. At the same time, the financial system suffers due to a lack of diversely set up banks, with varied types of loans and interest rates on offer and with business models that are not prone to fail at exactly the same time.

If only it were possible to say in advance which banks will be dangerous in the future. In that case the solution would be simply to abolish most rules for the non-dangerous type. Crystal balls are in short supply, however, and time after time, both big and small banks have surprised regulators by being unpredictably safe, or unsafe, and if unsafe, by suddenly being systemically important (or politically important) at their point of failure. Legislators and supervisors do not like such surprises, and have responded by adding ever more detail to the Basel (and EU) capital framework and the Basel core principles for banking supervision. The original framework was drafted at a time when the ‘big, diversified and internationally active banks’ for which it was written were of the size that small banks are now, and capital markets and markets in financial instruments were relatively simple. Open borders in the EU single market (and around the world for some financial services) have since allowed a consolidation wave between banks operating in ever larger, more complex and interlinked financial markets, for which the original rules no longer appeared to suffice. This consolidation is then reinforced by the need for size to absorb the costs of stricter rules, and in times of crisis by supervisors begging relatively stable banks to take over relatively wobbly banks.

So now we appear to be stuck in a set of complex rules designed for complex banks and complex financial systems. And strangely, in many submarkets such bigger banks are behaving in exactly the same manner, dropping small borrowers as reviewing and monitoring them is too complex, dropping trade finance and USA linked clients because there are too high AML or FATCA administrative burdens associated with them, targeting exactly the same profitable and asset rich clients to offer loans to, and offering depositors the same tawdry deals because for large banks the wholesale funding market is both simpler, more predictable and cheaper than managing a plenitude of surly savers. Especially if having such depositors means higher fees to be paid to deposit guarantee funds, resolution funds, supervisors fees, and likely to local tax authorities.

The traditional EU approach to the capital framework has been that all banks should be on the same level playing field, and that the so-called proportionality principle will provide for enough flexibility to allow smaller and simpler banks to thrive. But how to apply the rules proportionally, when it is not clear for smaller banks that their supervisors will accept anything less than perfection, and for supervisors that leeway granted to their banks will not come back to haunt them when that bank fails? There is no safe haven for either banks and supervisors to hide from liability or bad publicity if something goes wrong that could have been prevented if rules to calculate requirements or set up a check and balances system could have been enforced too.

Now, it could be defended that the complex rules serve a useful purpose for complex banks. Their business is driven by a need to reduce regulatory capital requirements, and to prevent innovative abuse or avoidance the regulators have to be equally innovative to think up new detailed rules or guidance. In the absence of minimum capital requirements their sheer size otherwise might mean that in the eyes of the financial markets they can get away with even more minimal safety measures as long as they appear to be profitable. This is not the case for relatively smaller banks, where the amount of capital needed to be able to attract wholesale funding is often higher than the amount of regulatory capital required under solvency ratio calculations. For these smaller banks, the absolute number of regulatory capital requirements is not so much the burden, but the sheer size of administrative and reporting measures that are needed to be able to calculate this via the solvency ratio. And this burden is difficult to make proportional to their business, as the main elements that support that calculation need to be present in the same manner in both big and small banks to be able to come to a trustworthy outcome of standardised or internal models on which the solvency ratio is based.

Creating a lot of lightly regulated shadow-competitors for banks (such as via e-money, payment institutions, venture capital or social investment fund rules) does not solve the fact that the traditional basis of banking, attracting deposits, making loans, providing facilities, and thus easing the functioning of the economy, is becoming the prerogative of ever larger organisations that can optimize the regulatory burden of solvency ratio calculations.

If regulators and the remaining smaller and simpler banks are truly interested in more competition between banks, more choice for clients (both lenders and borrowers), more diversity in the banking sector, more effective rules, or at least less complex rules, then substantial changes in the prudential regime should be considered. Though it is easy to be married to the status quo of the Basel capital accord, it should be remembered that it is a relatively young framework of barely 40 or 50 years of age, that has been growing organically, and was never intended for the simplest banks, but for the most systemic banks of its day and age. And there are alternatives that still are based on available experience in the way banking was structured in the past, or how it is structured for state licensed banks in the USA, or how supervision is structured in the insurance sector.

In order to be contemplated by regulators, however, any alternative regime will need to be more effective than the current regime in preventing harmful fallout of a banks’ failure. Though the existing set of complex rules has a dismal track record during various crisis, there is a belief (though that belief possibly only exists in press releases) that the various untested add-ons of the last few years will work better in limiting the potential for future crisis. This even though for instance the much admired bail-in instrument has the potential to cause contagion in the bailed-in creditors, and harsher market risk requirements risk reducing the liquidity of markets in certain financial instruments. While waiting for the jury report on the effectiveness of the new add-ons to arrive during the next crisis, that belief in their sturdiness is a political reality. If an alternative simpler regime is even to be contemplated, the alternative simpler banks subject to it should thus be even more ‘safe’. Preferably, any legislator and supervisor that replaces part of the current regime for a simpler alternative should be able to honestly say that they do not care to have e.g. full control and complex data over the bank, because the public interest is fully managed in another way. In my opinion, this other way could be found by making the failure of such simple alternative banks irrelevant for the protection of their clients, and irrelevant to the financial system in which they operate. This will only work if the banks’ full failure hurts no one except the bank itself and its equity providers, not even if similar or related banks would fail at the same time. So if we would like more diversity in the banking sector, and allow some banks to compete on different conditions without undermining safety nor a level playing field, a new balance would need to be struck by deleting the most onerous obligations of the current regime for simple alternative banks, and replacing them with equally safety enhancing but more simple alternative measures.

Smaller and simpler banks appear to suffer most from the calculation, supporting organisational requirements, and pillar 3 and regulatory reporting requirements that relate to the solvency ratio. For non-complex banks, as indicated above, these requirements actually do not even result in a credible minimum capital level in the opinion of the banks themselves and/or the markets (small banks operate at higher capital levels than the minimum required). These solvency ratio calculations thus appear to be surplus to annual accounting calculations. While these regulatory requirements do not bind them, they still induce costs and force banks into specific business models. But ditching the solvency ratio requirements and all adherent organisation and reporting burdens, would be a large shift from the current regime, and would force supervisors out of their comfort zone. Even when the results of imposing the solvency ratio are thus far underwhelming and their limitations badly understood; their usefulness as one of the few means of control and – even if ex post – verification is at the moment not paralleled by other measures.

Nevertheless, I would propose deleting the solvency ratio calculation and all supporting requirements in full for a subset of simple alternative banks, subject to a range of conditions. Any tinkering with the solvency ratio – which evidently is in the comfort zone of regulators and supervisors – would not result in a measurable reduction in burdens, while only adding to the small forest of trees cut down to be able to print the so-called single rulebook now. The conditions for escaping the solvency ratio obligations should be simple and at the same time compensate for its loss, and prevent abuse. They should thus include the majority of the following:

• Personal liability of all current and (recent) past members of management and anyone ‘owning’ or ‘controlling’ the bank e.g. by having a stake of more than 10% of equity. Introducing collective responsibility in this manner would make banks again more similar to the out of fashion partnership-based banks, and force key influencers to face up to potential negative consequences of their or their partners’ decisions. An alternative could be a non-profit bank with mandatory low salaries and a prohibition on dividends and bonuses, but this would require some talented people to be willing to work for a fraction of their commercial salary solely for idealistic reasons.
• A leverage ratio based solely on comparing existing annual account information set at a high number (e.g. 10% or more, to be calibrated at the high capital levels smaller banks now have), combined with an FDIC style prompt corrective action tool. This could be supplemented by other indicators of health, but only if those are based on already available public annual accounts data.
• Limiting the asset side of the bank, by reintroducing the habit to issue limited banking licenses. For instance licensing such banks to be focused on SME finance, or on trade finance, or on infrastructure investing, or on mortgage loans. This is still an existing feature in the insurance sector, where the main type of insurance written by any specific licensed entity has to quite similar, e.g. limited to car insurance, or to fire insurance. Apart from their specialisation on the asset side, their business should only consist of deposit taking and offering payment accounts. This would clarify their transformation function, and ensure that their management can be focused on a specific business.
• General demands on management, valuation and bookkeeping sufficient for annual accounts and conduct of business purposes could remain in place.
• No deposits or credits should be accepted that are not fully guaranteed by a public deposit guarantee fund; or that are fully collateralized/insured by repo’s, covered bonds, credit default swaps or by other credit insurance. It could be contemplated to prescribe that a proportion of the deposits should be term deposits, though any simple alternative bank with a personally liable management is certain to keep a good liquidity buffer if they have immediately redeemable deposits.
• The maximum market share of such simple alternative banks in each specified banking activity they can be active in under their licenses, should be set at a level that ensures that both the deposit guarantee fund and the financial system could relatively easily absorb the net losses that will be suffered due to their potential for – even collective – failure (in a more strict version of the USA concentration limits).
• Such a bank should have all its activities within the same legal entity. It should be prohibited from having subsidiaries, should not be allowed to make loans to group entities, and should only be allowed to outsource to non-related entities that would not fail in case of its failure. If it is part of a group (e.g. a automotive group, or even a financial group), such a license can only be issued to one simple alternative bank per group. It should be supervised solely on a solo and stand-alone basis, and the parent group should be ignored except as an ex-post suable party in case of the demise of the bank. The equity share in a alternative simple bank by any ‘normal’ parent bank should be weighed solely as a capital investment both for solo and consolidated supervision purposes on its parent bank (to avoid solvency ratio requirements landing indirectly at the alternative simple bank).
• Instead of a supplementary pillar 2 regime, it should have a stand-alone annual obligation to write a business plan with its main business options and risks, and what it plans to do on both accounts.
• Its resolution plan should be simple: full liquidation, repaying the deposit guarantee fund for protecting its depositors, combined with the liquidator maximising the size of the estate by suing the liable persons within its structure for any deficit in repaying the DGS and other (collateralized) creditors.
• They should be identified by a separate name that highlights frailty (bank light, mini bank, high risk bank, or even alternative simple bank).

This is a much more convenient way of buying these medicines, on top of that, it offers them a chance to rise above their online viagra mastercard physical anomalies and lead a healthy sexual life! A sexual issue ought to be done as right on time as would be prudent. The tadalafil 5mg tablets sound waves travel into the muscle to record the electrical activity in that muscle. The inability to perform well during the process of sexual intercourse. buy cialis on line When you’ve got large help away from your family and as well as off the entire those individuals who can see you may help you the treatment of personal anxiety. cialis generico mastercard
If the bank or its equity providers want to abandon these restrictions, they can of course opt into the solvency ratio regime, perhaps with even the liability for new obligations incurred after the transfer slowly tapering off (though some form of collective liability of all key influencers would be good at any bank). For new start ups, this would have the benefit that by the time they would like to do so, they have had the chance to build up both their organisation and their expertise up to the required level to be able to work in that more complex environment. During a try-out phase for this new regime, it could be envisaged that such alternative simple banks should not operate on a cross border basis. Anything longer than during a try-out period would, however, irreparably damage the concept of the EU single market.

Whether such a regime-change is credible remains to be seen. It is out of the comfort zone of EU and Basel regulators (no more solvency ratio?) and latter day bankers (liability?). If banks and regulators are indeed serious in their concerns about the current regime and its impact on the way the banking sector performs its functions to the benefit of all of us, it should nonetheless be considered.

Also see:

Are EU Banks Safe?

Actal advice to the Dutch Minister of finance, Regulatory burdens on credit, 23 July 2015, plus the accompanying EY report of May 2015 (both in Dutch)

CEBS, results of the comprehensive quantitative impact study, 16 December 2010, www.eba.europa.eu. Also see BCBS, An Assessment of the Long-Term Economic Impact of Stronger Capital and Liquidity Requirements, August 2010, www.bis.org.

A new component of the recovery and resolution framework for banks is the mandatory bail-in of shareholders and unsecured creditors that will become mandatory across the EU at the latest in 2016. The bail-in of creditors has been introduced to avoid having member states (ultimately at the expense of its taxpayers) chipping in to bail out a bank that is too important for its economy to let fail. As a policy choice this is understandable, even if much of the initial investment in bailing out a failing bank is normally recouped when the bank or its assets are sold at a later point in time (unless the public sector owner manages the bank for other public policy reasons than recouping its investment).

For subsets of depositors/investors at banks the new mandatory bail-in at the behest of resolution authorities requires a new mind-set in risk management. Specifically this applies to those depositors holding funds at the bank that are not protected under the applicable depositor guarantee system, such as companies or individuals keeping more than 100.000 euro at the bank, or (from 2019) those that bought bonds issued by the bank.

The new rules aim to the public budget, while continuing to protect small depositors, and anyone with a secured claim on the bank (such as central banks). Really new in this line-up is the protection of the public budget, or as politicians/legislators name it: ‘the taxpayer’. Increasing the protection for the public budget does mean that the losses will have to be suffered by someone else, in this case the ‘senior unsecured creditors’ that used to rely on (1) implicit government support for large banks, (2) good banking supervision that would fail and liquidate the bank when it was still solvent enough to pay back each senior unsecured creditor after the liquidation process, or (3) for bondholders that qualify as consumers or small companies on the explicit deposit guarantee system for bond portfolios up to 100.000 euro. These are all in the process of being removed, as senior unsecured creditors will no longer be protected under any of them but instead will be forcibly bailed in when there are signs that the bank might be in trouble. The thinking is probably that very wealthy individuals will ultimately bear these costs, but in practice the impact is more likely to be suffered by pension funds, insurers, banks, investment funds that hold cash at the bank in their current accounts, have bonds or own shares issued by the bank, or have to replenish deposit guarantee systems that have to cough up the cash under a bail-in. And by the consumers and companies dependent on them of course.

Though the commitments to the pension fund of the employees of the failing bank are protected, any debts to other pension funds or insurance companies are fair game. Regulators can still opt – in an optional and thus non-dependable manner – to exclude bail-inable creditors at the moment of the bail-in if they for instance fear unrest. This might benefit certain senior creditors, but will only increase the burden on the remaining senior creditors that do not get this benefit from the resolution authorities (for instance because they are based in another member state, or are too small to start a crisis if they in turn fail due to writing down the money they had entrusted to the bank).

For bonds, the exclusion from deposit guarantee protection and accompanying bail-in-ability may be somewhat defendable (in spite of the potential financial instability risks of writing down bank bond values), as long as the right risk premium is paid by the bank for this risk. I understand that after downgrades of bank bonds by rating agencies in anticipation of the bail-in instrument, the (ultra low) interest rates on unsecured senior debt have shown an increase in the risk premium paid to investors in such bonds. It is doubtful whether that risk premium is enough to compensate for the de facto highly increased risk that bank supervisors will deem a bank to be potentially in trouble and potentially to cause financial instability, and ‘rescuing’ the bank by increasing its capital by writing down or converting these bonds. This can and perhaps should be judged part of normal risk management at the institutions investing in such bonds. It could be a conscious assessment by a well-trained lender that the likelihood of such an event is sufficiently low per bank in a diversified portfolio of bank bonds that even at the current low interest rates the small add-on constitutes an acceptable risk premium. Perhaps. For non-deposit protected consumers and non-financial companies that invest spare cash in bank bonds after the deposit insurance expires for bank bonds in 2019 it is unlikely to be as well prepared for.

A risk perhaps less well understood is that any cash held at any bank on a savings/payment/current account (to the extent it exceeds the coverage by the deposit guarantee system or collateral, and thus also constitutes a so-called senior unsecured credit) is subject to the same write down or conversion as unsecured bonds are. For instance, if a pension funds uses one single bank to collect the liquidity needed to make out the monthly payments to its pensioners, it is in fact making a high risk investment in the bank. This high risk materialises if the banks’ supervisor and resolution authority decide that the time for failing the bank has come before the order for the transfer to pensioners has been given. The bank will in that case re-open the next Monday as usual, but the cash needed by the pension fund to make the payment to pensioners will no longer be available as such cash was bailed-in. The supervisor/resolution authority may or may not give an exemption to the bail-in, but this would increase the burden for others (and is certainly not a right of the pension fund).

The main dependable exception is if the bank gives collateral to the owner of the cash, in the example to the pension fund. Senior unsecured debt is bail-inable, but secured debt is excluded. This is for instance the case with central bank loans that will be collateralized by sovereign bonds or other acceptable collateral. Other examples are for funds owed in the clearing and settlement process, or in the case of bonds so-called pfandbriefe and other covered bonds (that are secured by specific assets of the bank). Small pension funds and small insurers will normally not have the market power or political power to ensure such security is given to them for payment accounts. If they do not get it, they may be wise to spread their cash holdings over a wide range of banks in order to avoid potentially losing all their cash in one go. They could also seek insurance e.g. via derivatives on the potential that a bank will fail, but that may be costly, and it would need to be certain that the writer of that derivative/insurance is not itself linked to or exposed to the bank that is failing.

Should the shares in a bank, bonds issued by a bank, and savings held at a bank by an institutional investor be bailed in, this may have an impact on its own obligations to pay out. An investment fund will be worth less (and so will the pro rata investments by its investors, and the investors in such investors), which may or may not have been understood by those investing via such a fund. At an insurance company or pension fund it may mean that premiums will need to be increased, or payouts reduced. Though their clients may not always be taxpayers in the country where the bank was based, they will definitely be taxpayers somewhere. Taxpayers will thus still bear the costs directly or indirectly via their pension funds, investment funds and insurance firms. The main change is that this burden will only to a lesser extent arrive via state budgets (which will still contract due to lower tax receipt as a result of the losses suffered by banks, insurers, and individual taxpayers, as well as via bailed-in cash held by municipalities, provinces and other state bodies at the bank). The main advantage is the public relations benefit that the burden will not go via the state budget immediately, and that the costs – if pension funds, insurers etcetera have limited their risks via risk management – will be spread out over time and many consumers. Small increases in premiums or limits to payments are less noticeable than a big headline number of initial investment by the state in a traditional bailout. Saving the taxpayer by bailing taxpayers in (directly or indirectly) does, however, appear to be logically impossible.

Being mentally healthy viagra pfizer canada is very important for us. These herbal supplements have achieved the recognition of being the most popular aphrodisiac herb, it can provide relief to a number generico cialis on line great website of sexual health issues. This means that since they are not only beneficial for sexual health but also are a key to commander levitra Get More Information overall rejuvenation and vitality. Ball and Socket Joints- Permit for Click Here buy cialis wide range of rotation and movement. Also see:

– Recital 1, 5, 8, 31, 67 and art 44, 47, 48, 108, 109 and 130 BRRD directive 2014/59/EU

– Recital 5 and 6 Recast Banking Directive 2006/48/EC (part of the previous version of the CRD)

– Art 27 SRB regulation 806/2014

– Art 1.1 and 1.4 of the currently applicable Deposit guarantee directive 1994/19/EC, and Recital 47 and art 5, 20 and 21 Deposit guarantee directive 2014/49/EU (of which 5.1 sub k on excluding bonds will be applicable from July 2019)

– Italy/Romanelli, EU Court of Justice 11 February 1999, Case C-366/97, §13-15.

– EU Banking Supervision, chapter 4.4, 18 and 19

– Are EU Banks Safe?, chapter 3

The VW manipulation of its emissions testing results provides lessons for banks, insurers and their supervisors. Testlab results bear no similarity to real life survival or failure is a simple one. Bad governance structures can lead to bad decisions (as highlighted by John Plender in the FT and supported by a wide range of examples such as the DSB Bank failure in the Netherlands). Another lesson is that the testlab/models that are the basis for calculating capital requirements are prone to pressure and manipulation.

There appear to have been two stages that shifted the results in response to high-level orders to pass environmental tests and improve sales. The first is the – as I understand – industry standard in the EU that emissions are only tested in laboratory conditions on vehicles that are specially selected and prepared for this testing by stripping off all inconvenient aspects (rear view mirrors, wipers, and anything that weighs anything in the car that is not needed to make it run, such as the standard airconditioning or audio equipment). For some this is the minor league of evasion or fraud as it ‘only’ changes the hardware, and anyone actually looking would notice. Even for this type of lab-adaptation there is little relation between the car in the lab and on the road, but some people would say it remains in the nudge and wink category of how smart it is to evade the vague requirements and the light touch oversight, and the general contours of the car tested remain the same. The second stage is now provoking more outrage, as the manipulation is not in the visible hardware, but in lines of code in the software. Any instrument that supposedly cleans up the emissions but was a drag on ease of handling on the road was automatically switched off by the design of the software, except when the exact conditions of the laboratory test were found.

Though it is unlikely that executives removed the hardware from the testlab-models or wrote the software that changed the car from fake circumstances to real life riding and back, it is likely that they created the incentives to do so by demanding relative growth as compared to competitors, in the cars case by simultaneously demanding low emissions during tests so that the cars could legally be sold, and high performance so that customers would actually want to buy them, and did not bother to sufficiently check whether the product sold fit the description on issues that customers did not bother to verify or sue on, and regulators did not bother to/were not able to check.

The calculation of capital requirements is open to similar pressures. It is abstract, only important if thousands of products fail to perform at the same time, only important in the long term, and customers do not like it while the bank or insurer is alive because it heightens their costs if the bank or insurer would take it seriously. The old standardised approach for capital requirements calculation was abandoned for complex institutions because the choices made in investments were optimized by these institutions to take the highest risk/reward road within each wide basket of types of assets, such as corporate bonds. This maximized returns while minimizing costly capital requirements. The newly invented ‘internal’ models that have been introduced for banks in the 2004 Basel II accord (in the EU implemented via the 2006 version of the CRD) and will be introduced for insurers in 2016 under Solvency II allow more leeway to reward the bank or insurer if they choose a less risky product to invest in, but does expect them to take better regard of the more risky products too. Some banks are indeed relatively conservative or are being forced to be relative conservative by their supervisors, and estimate the riskiness of the assets they hold higher than the models used by their competitors estimate the same or the same type of assets. Some banks, however, are removing the airconditioning and audio systems by abandoning newly capital-costly areas such as trade finance or investment banking, while plunging collectively into low capital-costly areas, or professing high confidence in their clients or risk management systems. The result is that banks’ internal models show wildly different results, which is an indicator that some may be too lightly capitalised for the risks they run in their entire business. An additional result is that worthy areas of services are no longer provided by banks, but are either not provided, or are now provided by less regulated service providers. It is likely that more conservatively calculating banks are under pressure to become more ‘capital efficient’ in order to retain profitability and competitiveness.

The temptation to adapt the outcomes of test-results is easy to understand. Lower capital requirements (emissions) lead to the potential for acquiring more assets (making more sales) that generate higher profits and higher status for the CEO. And a slight tweak in one area that makes the boss happy does not really impact a lot on the overall capital; except of course if this happens in all areas the bank or insurer is active in. These tweaks stimulate the financial company, their shareholders and the economy as long as the bank or insurer makes no losses yet. And the internal models used by complex banks do not show with a big blinking warning whether there is internal pressure to always lean in the same direction. Fundamental attitudes towards the need for buffers or the need for speed and profits are neither measured nor checked easily, especially if the number of experts is vastly larger on the bank’s side than on the supervisors’ side. But if the general attitude at a financial company is that it is acceptable to have slight manipulations, or just slightly reducing the riskiness of the asset just by removing the dragging mirrors from the test-lab model, this risks the continued survival of the firm once it comes out. Removing trade finance already does not make the bank safer. It just makes it less well capitalised, and diminishes the value of the bank to society similar to cars with high Nox emissions in real life. Especially harmful would be if it turns out that the models used by banks are deliberately built to optimise testlab results that bear no relation to known market and firm behaviour when risks materialise. Bankers/Insurers would, however, not be unique in such manipulation. The regulated bits of internal models and the standardised models are riddled with such deliberate misdesign by lawmakers, e.g. to underestimate the riskiness of SME-loans, or to hugely underestimate the riskiness of sovereign bonds. In the end, if banks add to this, and do not compensate for design-faults in the laws that rule the design of models to calculate capital by adding voluntary layers of safety themselves, it remains deceit towards clients, investors, and society as a whole.

Though supervisors are aware of the discrepancies, they have been kicking the can down the road for a while, and there are no signs yet of an official line. The amount of capital needed for the most derelict banks – and the financial stability consequences of exposing them – may pressure them into regulatory forbearance. Though this is both understandable and damnable at the same time, such regulatory forbearance does not impact on the own responsibility of bank and insurance boards on whose watch such collective leaning or manipulation takes place by underlings who aim to please their bosses by improved headline numbers.

Safety should not be tampered with, and will not be tampered with in the long run, as the sheltered executives of VW already found out.

Also see:

• Plender, John, Poor governance at VW should have been a warning to investors, FT 30 September 2015
• Noonan, Laura, ECB doubles the time needed to review banks’ risk models, FT 16 August 2015
• EBA reports of 22 July 2015 on eba.europa.eu
• BCBS, Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme (RCAP) Analysis of Risk-Weighted Assets for Market Risk, January 2013 (rev February 2013)
• BCBS, Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme (RCAP) Analysis of Risk-Weighted Assets for Credit Risk in the Banking Book, July 2013
• UK FSA, A Regulatory Response to the Global Banking Crisis; Discussion Paper 09/2, March 2009, page 71-73

The color of Kamagra pill is different that that of the cheapest viagra in uk because it is the rule of nature and change always comes for good. With the help of spinal commander cialis decompression by a professional healthcare provider at initial phase of treatment. Kilham decided to get a look at the laborious task of unseating the vertical root of the famed Eurycoma Longifolia cialis prices appalachianmagazine.com tree for himself. If you not treated this problem properly, they could advance lead to erectile dysfunction or impotence is concerned. cialis super active
 

• EU Banking Supervision, chapter 6.3
• Are EU Banks Safe?, chapter 4.5

Increasing mortgage loan risk weights in a depressed property market is likely to be procyclical, as would reducing risk weights in booming property market. Strangely, this procyclicality appears to be acceptable under the contemplated EBA standards on adjusting risk weights due to financial stability considerations that are currently out for consultation. The draft binding rules do not specify when they should best be adjusted up, and when down, nor how to take into account such potential procyclical effects. Nothing in the proposed binding rules clarifies at which part of the cycle this lever should be used, which is a bit odd for nominally technical rules that have as their key ingredient that a specific lever can be used for financial stability considerations.

The EBA proposals do give a clue as to what information is relevant, but mainly leave the type of response to the supervisor itself. A supervisor eager to apply the law in a conservative manner is left scratching his head as to the optimum course and timing. A supervisor eager or under political or monetary policy pressure to boost a growing economy, or to stop a sliding property market, is free to do whatever it wants even if the longer term effects might be a less safe banking system. For example, the economies of many of the member states currently need a stimulus. Increasing house prices and office prices based on cheaper lending – if banks do not need to hold so much capital – could help provide such a stimulus. Even though bad lending practices and too low risk premiums and risk buffers for mortgage loans in the USA subprime sector actually kicked off the latest worldwide crisis, the solution to help growth in the short term could be to keep risk weights low, and to keep all options open for national legislators and supervisors. As a result of such pressures it is difficult to blame EBA and its voting members for building in this leeway. However, it does mean that the new binding rules are not very useful if a supervisor or financial stability regulator would like to be able to take measures to ensure the stability of the banking sector and/or the property market. The standards instead excel in less than clear guidance such as ‘Take into account housing market developments’, which kicks in a wide-open door, and says nothing on whether rising values or buyers interest should lead to an increase in risk weighting (and thus higher capital requirements), or to a decrease in risk weighting (and thus lower capital requirements).

This leaves aside that a discussion could be had on whether a higher risk weight would be best from a technical point of view in the upslope of a boom (to stop irrational exuberance, and build up capital buffers for the eventual decline in property values a few years hence and thus in an anticyclical manner), or on the downslope towards a trough (to increase the potential for bank capital being sufficient to deal with future losses in a value-declining property market, thus limiting the scope for banks to lend to potential new purchasers and forcing them to double down capital for existing and new downward developing mortgage loans, even though for the wider economy this would be procyclical). In this light, an analysis performed by supervisors on the basis of the lengthy data sets available over the boom period and the bust in immovable property markets in almost every member state could have been used to base these standards on an analysis of the costs and benefits of heightening and reducing risk weights in each national or regional property market in the period from e.g. 2000 until now. Indicating when Dutch, Spanish, Irish or any other national supervisor in hindsight would have wished that they used the existing risk weight-adjustment instrument either in a pro- or anticyclical manner during that period might lead to useful indicators as to when it should be used in the future with the best impact on wider financial stability as well as on the resilience provided by larger bank financial buffers.

A compromise solution could be to try to aim for the upper slopes of the boom for an increase, and reduce it when property prices have gone below reasonable long term values. At the bottom of the trough this would stimulate the housing market, especially if the expected losses on the housing portfolio have already been written down in full under a possibly wider definition of default and/or lower valuation of the collateral. Higher risk weights on the remaining fully covered mortgage loans would then no longer be necessary, if – and only if – the risk weight setter is able to correctly call when a boom is under way, or when a property market recession is entering irrationally depressed territory.

It would thus be helpful if the standards clarify whether their primary target is to stabilise the immovable property market in a certain market segment, or to stabilise the banks that lend in that area even if that means restricting loans to a already plummeting property market, or both. That would also help indicate whether there is a need to coordinate across financial sectors and across banks on the standardised and IRB approach (to ensure that banks, insurers, pension funds and other non-bank mortgage loan providers increase or decrease their exposure to the market segment involved in the same manner) which I would favour, or not (to ensure that the banks are safe by being able – to put it bluntly – to offload the risky and more costly exposure to the overheated property segment, even if that is to unsuspecting insurers or securitisation-investors such as pension funds).

This overall lack of clear indicators and purposes means that I am a bit reluctant to criticise the only clear benchmark that EBA does provide, which has been referenced in the draft standards and made more concrete in the impact assessment. According to it, loss expectations should be a key factor to determine how high the risk weights should be. It is a welcome clarification of intent, and something supervisors might be benchmarked to. However, though I applaud its inclusion, this specific benchmark does clarify two things that in view of pro and anti-cyclical thinking are a bit unwelcome. The first is that higher loss expectations are expected to be the trigger for an increase in risk weighting. As soon as market based loss expectations are made the determining factor, any irrationality in the market suddenly becomes less easy to deal with. This irrationality is part of the accepted market wisdom at that time, so if for ten years prices have gone up, no one ‘expects’ losses any more. Only once the bust period actually arrives, loss expectations suddenly swing up (sometimes to irrational heights in a panic). Increasing risk weights at that point in time will only strengthen the slide into the abyss. If risk weights instead are already up when loss expectations are still close to nil, then the lever could helpfully be used to lighten the load on the way down, helping to dampen the cycle. That does, however, require supervisors actually to take a stand against ‘the sky is the limit’ politicians and realtors, which as indicated above may not be their favoured role.

Second, the table appears to indicate that the lowest risk weights are appropriate in ‘normal’ times. If so, the lever of risk weights is unavailable during the entire trough of the cycle, meaning it has no dampening effect to get the market (and the banks’ capital requirements) into a mood that indicates light at the end of the tunnel. From a macroprudential point of view, that seems unhelpful. The lowest risk weights should be only in force at the ‘apex’ of the bust, so that the lever can be used both in the downswing and the upswing. No doubt this is more the role of the ESRB to point out, but strangely their role as providers of warnings and advisors on the cyclicality of draft-rules is not visibly reflected in the EBA draft standards.

In conclusion, it may be good to re-assess and clarify some of the key concepts, main goals and direction of adjustments in the draft binding rules before they enter into force. Building upon the experience in the past crisis with a ‘in hindsight’ analysis as to when and how this tool would have been most effective and efficient would be helpful. Both changes would help shelter banking supervisors from being put under pressure to sacrifice long term bank stability against short term political pressure for economic growth.

Also see:

• The separate comment on adjusting the mortgage risk weights
• EU Banking Supervision, chapter 6.2, 6.5, 8, 18.3, 21.2-21.4, and 22.5
• 124-126 CRR
• 128.2 sub d CRR
• 164-166 CRR
• EBA consultation paper EBA/CP/2015/12 of 6 July 2015 on determining higher risk-weights

This drug needs to be utilized only on line levitra once every day. Vacuum Devices: Such devices levitra side effects are help to improve semen load. By all means, he online pharmacy for levitra prides himself in keeping her happy. Although women use about 15 buying viagra without prescription percent of the testosterone be it administered or natural, remains in a state that is bound which makes it very useless for muscle building.

Banks that provide mortgage loans can be subject to more or less risk depending on for instance developments in house prices and house shortages in countries or cities. This means they need to hold more financial buffers or less financial buffers depending on the risk that the loan will not be repaid in full, which shift in prudential buffer demands in turn affects housing affordability for most buyers (and thus stimulates or dampens the housing market). EBA is now consulting on the ‘regulatory standards’ on varying the risk weighting for mortgage loans for both homes (residential property) and commercial properties such as shops and offices due to such financial stability considerations. The consultation paper is fostering this discussion very helpfully, but still has some severe shortcomings if it were to become law in this way, one of them is that it only deals with the increase of the risk weight, not with the decrease thereof, the effect of this information on the market, nor the changes in prices and risk over time. Another concern is the lack of clear rules on the timing these supervisory interventions in the financial cycle, which is the subject of a separate comment.

The headline risk rate for immovable property backed loans in the standardised approach to credit risk is that they should be risk weighted at 100%. This headline risk rate is, however, only used if some rather lenient criteria set by the CRR are not fulfilled. If sufficiently backed by qualifying homes, shops or offices the risk weight is sharply reduced (to 35 or 50 %). For the internal model based approach, there is an equivalent possibility to reduce or increase the LGD factor. The result is that banks normally only have to hold a reduced amount of financial buffers on residential and commercial types of mortgage loans. The only exception is if these criteria on the relative value of the collateral to the loan are found not to be fulfilled, and – and this is the subject of the consultation – when supervisors indicate that the reduction in perceived risk is not opportune at that moment in time, or even demand an additional slice of capital by increasing the risk weighting for commercial and residential mortgage loans to up to 150%.

Lets leave aside that the definitions of the terms used are as clear as tar (of the type of definition that residential property means a property that is a residence) and thus highly likely to be moulded not only to local practices but also to the lowest risk requirements. Lets also leave aside that if the supervisors set a high risk weight of 150%, it might be miraculously decided by the bank that the collateral is no longer sufficient, in which case the back-up risk weight of 100% will start to apply in accordance with the badly worded CRR provisions. Lets focus instead on the good intention that sometimes it would be good to require more capital, and sometimes less, for the good of the immovable property market and of the individual mortgage providers active in it.

The 150% risk weight is actually not new. It existed also in previous versions of the capital requirements directives, but was one of those territories that sounded good in theory but in practice were not used. In the depths of the subprime crisis, these levers gained new attention, and even a modicum of followers. For the standardised approach, some member states have now introduced stricter requirements on the lowest risk weighting, and some member states increased the risk weighting to 100% (none yet to the maximum of 150%). For the internal model based approach, only Norway (which is outside of the EU but covered by the CRR provisions under the EEA treaty) has used the possibility to increase the LGD factor in the internal model approach to credit risk (though other supervisors, however, may have done this too in an ad hoc manner as part of the model approval process). This is one of the macro/micro prudential levers that directly impact on the banks’ capital requirements for mortgage loans, and thus on the property market in specified regions (either in a whole country like Greece, or just in overheating segments such as London or Amsterdam). The weird thing is that the proposed regulation only addresses the ‘when should the requirement go up’ question, and ignores the equally important ‘when and how should the requirement go down’.

Even though this tool formally addresses only the capital position of individual banks, it applies to each domestic and foreign bank that is active in a specific property market, and thus will impact – intentionally it appears – on market prices in that area, by increasing or decreasing mortgage availability and interest rate levels. Hopefully, a similar restriction will apply to non-bank mortgage providers, though how this is ensured for specialised institutions or e.g. insurers is equally not addressed in the CRR or consultation paper. If the risk weight change might even potentially be a market-moving event, it is as important to give clarity on when the risk weight percentage or LGD should go down as on when it should go up. If this is not immediately clear from the new contemplated laws, the supervisor will join monetary authorities in their catch 22 of never being able to increase the interest rates if the only thing holding up market prices and holding back a recession is the fact that the market does not expect such an increase in interest rates. That the monetary interest rate dilemma relates also to bond and other financial instrument prices instead of – like this specific instance of mortgage loan risk weighting – only impacts on house prices and affordability does not really matter. If the risk weight is stuck at either a high or low value due to unclear criteria and potential market moving impact, it becomes useless as a macro economic and micro prudential lever.

In addition, the proposed rules should be clear on how supervisors should determine when the risk requirement goes up, but also how they clarify to the market when it certainly will go down again, and how gradual that decline will be. As market prices in the defined segment will be impacted – at least if they are intended to be useful – both by the decision to go up and by the decision to climb down (by reducing or increasing the exposure of the banks to that segment, and making new mortgage loans more expensive or cheaper) in a parallel to the insider information rules the obligatory decision-path and the communication plan of the supervisor involved should be very clear indeed. The consultation paper is silent on the communication plan that should have accompanied it, which is a serious defect on any issue that will and should impact overheating or collapsing housing markets.

To be fair, EBA’s drafting problems derive in part from unclear or one sided drafting of the CRR itself, which focuses solely on the going up variety, and ignores cross-sector and insider-information type concerns. Perhaps the attention of prudential supervisors and housing market organisations could have been better asked for and used at the time of drafting of the related CRR provision, which now contains pitfalls (what is the impact on the bank’s profitability, on their market share compared to other providers, why is there only a level playing field between banks on a specific approach, and not between banks on different approaches, and would a gradual build up and decrease not be better than the sharp cliffs now envisaged, and why do the increases not impact immediately on new mortgage loans, alongside a gradual build up for the existing mortgage loan portfolio?). And what should be the impact on the interest rates agreed in the existing loan portfolio, and is this a public policy concern (which it might well be if it impacts on the financial health of house owners), or is it an issue that can be left to banks (by introducing an additional component into their contractual interest rate calculation and adaptation).

In short, even within the boundaries of the sketchy provisions in the CRR, the consultation paper could be helpfully improved by filling in some of the blanks on adjusting these risk weight provisions both down and up, and on cross-sector cooperation as well as good communication. In an area as important as housing markets, leaving this to national discretion or to market participants may not be the best course. In addition, the related CRR provisions might be adjusted to improve their effectiveness.

Also see:

• The separate comment on timing these supervisory interventions
• Art. 124-126 CRR
• Art. 128.2 sub d CRR
• Art. 164-166 CRR
• EBA consultation paper EBA/CP/2015/12 of 6 July 2015 on determining higher risk-weights,
• EBA overview of notifications on 124 and on 164 CRR
• EBA Q&A 2014-1214
• EU Banking Supervision, chapter 6.2, 8, and 16.6.

Finally, if you want to get your license. discounts on viagra you could try these out purchase levitra online Commonly, doxycycline is an antibiotic of the fluoroquinolone class. So is it possible to purchase brand cialis price without prescription? No. levitra is an RX medication that requires doctor’s prescription to purchase. The generic cialis india should be taken to have good information on the storage pattern of the pill.